Over at Crux, I have a new piece exploring the patriarchal effects of the trans movement. Until lately, if someone had mentioned patriarchy in the developed world, I would’ve thought…

Image from Bing images. Licensed for public domain.

Over at Crux, I have a new piece exploring the patriarchal effects of the trans movement.

Until lately, if someone had mentioned patriarchy in the developed world, I would’ve thought we were about to embark on a somewhat archaic conversation. But recent events, crystallized by Target’s decision to open its sex-differentiated bathrooms and fitting rooms to the personal narrative of its customers, have me thinking that patriarchy is alive and well.

Hear me out.

Throughout history, women have been denigrated and oppressed by men. While I don’t always agree with some feminist activists, I certainly acknowledge that I would not have had the opportunities that I have without feminist efforts to right so many wrongs.

Despite these advances, today’s “trans movement” (particularly the transwoman sector) inadvertently takes us back to a time when women were valued based on their appearance, and whether they fit someone else’s preconceived notion of femininity. In essence, all it takes to be a woman today are [fake] breasts and good hair.

In Rome, International Women’s Day is celebrated with small bouquets of mimosa flowers. The guys that typically sell you umbrellas and odd gimmicks come armed with these bouquets only for…

In Rome, International Women’s Day is celebrated with small bouquets of mimosa flowers. The guys that typically sell you umbrellas and odd gimmicks come armed with these bouquets only for today, a lovely gesture.

But my time in Rome taught me that International Women’s Day wasn’t as innocuous a celebration as it might sound. What I learned in Rome was word of mouth from those who grew up in communist or socialist countries, but there’s a current opinion piece by Antony Davies and James Harrigan in the Wall Street Journal that confirms the same. The article may require subscription access, but here are a few highlights –

“[F]ew, if any, will note International Women’s Day’s origins in American socialism and Eastern European communism.”

“The day was first declared by the American Socialist Party in 1909 and, in 1917, it set into motion a sequence of events that would become Russia’s February Revolution. Female workers went on strike that day to achieve “bread and peace” in the face of World War I.”

“Leon Trotsky later concluded that this event inaugurated the revolution.”

Now, Davies and Harrigan go on to argue the merits of capitalism and conclude that the free markets are the best alternative to remedy any type of socio-economic inequity, including gender.

But I’d like to add a fourth point to their consideration of the origins of today’s commemoration.

4. Proposing International Women’s Day took the focus off of the celebration of women as mothers.

The name suggests that women are being celebrated in their entirety, whatever their role may be. But the celebrations instead focus exclusively on women’s participation in the labor/economics/government and do not include stay at home moms nor women as women. Mothers are included insofar are programs are required to support them working outside of the home. All women, similarly, are measured solely in terms of what they produce in an economy, not for who they are.

But motherhood is an essential aspect of life for most women. While it may have challenges, it is also greatly desired. Consider the multi-billion dollar global industry that seizes on this desire for couples who struggle with infertility or the reactions of joy that many women express when they learn that they are expecting, not to mention the joys of countless experiences in family life well beyond childhood. Unfortunately, we’ve been taught that motherhood is just one aspect of multi-tasking, that it ought not to be the center of a woman’s (or a husband’s or a family’s) life. Celebrations like today reinforce the idea that women ought not to identify too closely with motherhood, that it is something which should be subjugated to other types of achievements.

[I]t will redound to the credit of society to make it possible for a mother – without inhibiting her freedom, without psychological or practical discrimination and without penalizing her as compared with other women – to devote herself to taking care of her children and educating them in accordance with their needs, which vary with age.

Sadly, today’s commemoration fails to represent and honor the women who willingly and freely choose to make their vocation as a mother a primary part of their identity, even at the cost of career achievements.

Extreme violence has always bothered me. Forget trying to get me to watch a really violent film. I will have both of my ears stopped with my hands or a…

Extreme violence has always bothered me. Forget trying to get me to watch a really violent film. I will have both of my ears stopped with my hands or a nearby cushion. But violence against women seems to me particularly unseemly and not just in an ungentlemanly sense. The movie The Passion of the Christ gave me a clue about this inclination.

What Incarnation?

In the scene where Christ is being flogged, the character of the devil enters in a figure that mocks Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the birth of the Christ himself. That image stuck with me and then I realized that there’s a sense in which all violence against women mocks the Incarnation.

Hear me out. You can have your say in the com boxes below.

Each act of violence against a woman makes it harder to believe that God could be born of something so apparently worthless.

There’s a reason why the concept of courtly love developed in a Christian culture; it was a culture that deeply loved Mary and women were seen to mirror her.

There’s a reason why Christianity was the first major religion to have the same initiation rite for women and men, namely baptism, and why it was the first religion to allow women to have a say in whether or not they married, even whom they married. That reason is twofold: Mary and the Incarnation.

A recent CNN video reporting on yet another “honor” killing in Pakistan reminded me of this.

Farzana Parveen was stoned to death because she did not agree to an arranged marriage. She was three months pregnant when her family publicly and brutally murdered her. No one stepped in to help. Like many cultures, hers is reported to be one in which family actions are private no matter how public may be their execution [no pun intended]. Her husband (not the man her family wanted her to marry) talks about what a good wife she was. But as he tells his story, it also comes out that he killed his previous wife so that he could marry Farzana. Disposable wives. Fantastic.

In Pakistan alone, there were almost 900 honor killings last year. That doesn’t even begin to take into account other actions of violence against women in Pakistan, much less violence against women elsewhere.

Here’s the thing. If violence against women makes it more difficult to accept the Incarnation, then it also makes it even more difficult to believe that a God exists “who loved the world so greatly,” including each one of the perpetrators of these crimes.

This post is going to be a bit rambling as I want to mention several different things. But most importantly, happy anniversary to Pope Francis on the first anniversary of his…

This post is going to be a bit rambling as I want to mention several different things.

But most importantly, happy anniversary to Pope Francis on the first anniversary of his pontificate. I was out for a walk, convinced that I didn’t need to be glued to the television because it would be quite some time before the cardinals reached a consensus. (Shows you how dialed into the Holy Spirit I was/am…) I was on the phone talking to Teresa Tomeo and suddenly she kept repeating, “White smoke! White smoke!” Well, my walk turned into a run at that point. I made it home in time to see some of that smoke myself.

My initial inclination was that this would be the Pope of shoe leather evangelization. John Paul II reminded the world that the Church was still here and as relevant as ever. Benedict XVI made clear that Church teaching was the same as always. He was also one of the great reformers, even if he received few accolades for his effort. Francis is building on his predecessors and making our faith as alive as possible, encouraging us to live it. He doesn’t focus on “issues” that Catholics of various stripes would prefer. He encourages us to meet Christ in the person before us, whomever God has put in front of us, whether it’s a hungry person, someone in prison, a woman in a crisis pregnancy, a friend, or a family member. The point is to see this person’s humanity, their need, and in so doing to see Christ. Joan Desmond at National Catholic Register did me a lovely courtesy by picking up on this theme of shoe leather evangelization for her current post.

I also have a piece at Patheos’ “Public Square” on the role of women in the Church. I think we have to listen carefully to what Pope Francis has been saying. Yes, he’s said that women need a greater role in the Church; but we can’t limit our thoughts on women as to what offices they might hold in the local chancellory (where they already tend to have a significant presence) or try to fit them into clerical boxes. My thoughts here. As always, non-troll feedback is welcome and enjoyed!

As did Elizabeth Scalia on Facebook. I’ll just post her comment here. She cites Simcha’s article:

Look, Catholic women are in a very peculiar position in the 21st century. Many of us have, like de Solenni, rejected the radical feminism that the secular world offers. We are horrified that the feminist movement devolved into a parody of itself, and almost instantly turned from its sorely needed goal of promoting respect and justice for women, and became ugly and strident, rejecting fertility, scorning self-sacrifice, devaluing men and damaging women and children.

But most of the Catholic women I know are just as disgusted with the sissifcation of the Church. We have no desire to replace the sacraments with weaving classes and yoga. This is stupid stuff. This doesn’t tell you what woman can offer, any more than a stroll down the porn and firearms aisle of your local porn and firearms store tells you what men have to offer.

I do not want to be a man, and I do not want to be like a man. I also do not want to turn the Church into a hand-holding, feelings-sharing warm bath of emotion. That’s a parody of womanhood, and it’s just as offensive to women of faith as it is to men of faith.

This is precisely why we need a theology of women: because we’re tired of the parodies, the clownish extremes that purport to represent womanhood.

In his book Bonfire of the Vanities, Tom Wolfe describes the women at an exclusive party in Manhattan. The first group, starved to near perfection, used fashion to compensate for…

In his book Bonfire of the Vanities, Tom Wolfe describes the women at an exclusive party in Manhattan. The first group, starved to near perfection, used fashion to compensate for the natural curves that they had denied their bodies. These were mostly the first wives and “women of a certain age.” Then he describes the “lemon-tarts,” the women who were young, the live-in girlfriends, or subsequent wives. But he notes that one type of woman was missing: “[N]o one ever invited … Mother.”

Just before yesterday’s debate, a USA Today/Gallup poll showed Gov. Mitt Romney taking the lead over President Barack Obama. The lead was largely attributed to more women giving their support to…

Just before yesterday’s debate, a USA Today/Gallup poll showed Gov. Mitt Romney taking the lead over President Barack Obama. The lead was largely attributed to more women giving their support to the governor. As I wrote yesterday, this suggests that maybe, just maybe, women care about more than “pelvic politics” (abortion, contraception, abortion and abortion).

The debates gave considerable evidence of each candidate’s view of women.

An outside observer, say an anthropologist hundreds of years from now, might survey the evidence of our conversations and conclude that women were only concerned about their genital regions. Look…

An outside observer, say an anthropologist hundreds of years from now, might survey the evidence of our conversations and conclude that women were only concerned about their genital regions. Look no further than the so-called war on women, just another version of pelvic politics. You know, abortion, contraception, abortion, and, oh yes, abortion. As if women have no other concerns.

Well, a USA Today/Gallup poll now shows Gov. Romney taking the lead over Pres. Obama precisely because more women are opting for the Governor. In other words, women think about more than contraception and abortion, even those who support either or both. They think about the economy, national security, education, religious freedom, and a whole host of other things.

“In every poll, we’ve seen a major surge among women in favorability for Romney” since his strong performance in the first debate, veteran Democratic pollster Celinda Lake says. “Women went into the debate actively disliking Romney, and they came out thinking he might understand their lives and might be able to get something done for them.”

I’m encouraged and hope that this could be a sign of expanding the conversation when it comes to women’s issues. Also, it’ll be interesting to see the debates tonight to see which questions women ask the candidates and how they interact with them.